Exactly. Sorry folks, but I fail to recognise even the slightest positive element about it. Even London's logo (which I learned to accept over the years, by the way) didn't appear as such a joke to me. Pyeongchang's logo looks as if the design team put absolutely no effort into it and created it within 10 minutes on a late Friday afternoon, when everybody is already preparing for the weekend.

"Oh, what have we: We have five Olympic colours, we should have a snowflake because that's traditional for Winter Games logos, we need some kind of shape - and a logotype. That's simple: We open Microsoft Paint, paint a multi-coloured rectangle (that coincidentally resembles the Korean letter for "P"), quickly paint a five-pointed star like a child (oh, luckily it looks like the Korean letter for "Ch"!) and then we take some random font from Microsoft Word as the logotype. Oh, and don't forget the Olympic Rings. Wait, the guys from Lausanne sent us a JPEG file of the Rings a couple of weeks ago. Copy, paste, slightly rearrange the position - DONE! So guys, what are your plans for the weekend?"

Despite the lack of an even worse category (which this logo absolutely would have deserved), I voted "Poor". But that's probably no surprise anymore.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Hmmm... now that I've seen the presentation video, I've mellowed a bit. But it's really a problem of modern Olympic logo design: That so many logos need extensive explanation first before you understand the idea behind them. Maybe I'm very conservative about that, but in my opinion, a logo has to work instantly, at first sight - because people won't have the time to muse for minutes what the idea behind it could be and why it could have some appeal. It must have immediate appeal.

Since many people associate the simple drawing of a rectangular figure with straight lines plus the very simple drawing of a five-pointed star, consisting only of lines, with children's drawings and since extremely minimalist designs are always very dangerous because they can be very wrongly executed (as in this case), they should have refrained of that design. Because, and my position hasn't changed in that regard: It's a PR disaster when you actually want to present your Games in the best possible light, as inviting as possible, but then get a shitstorm first about your logo choice. London could have spared itself a lot of unnecessary trouble in 2007 as well. But it chose to do something very bold, something very new in terms of logo design - and the **** simply hit the fan. They almost asked for it. And I doubt that that's the best strategy if you want to sell your brand.

So I agree with Scotguy and Ikarus: It's a decent idea, but the execution is just off. So I have to call upon Tokyo, Istanbul and Madrid: For heaven's sake, if you win the 2020 Games, learn from it! And please design a logo that doesn't need a video or even a whole book explaining its meaning - but a logo that explains itself and that has instant appeal!

I think it's bold--asserting these are Korean/Asian Games. The ways in which the elements of the emblem can be manipulated across graphic requirements is clever. I expect the pictos will work very well with it.

I lovedVancouver 2010 and Athens 2004 and think Sochi 2014 and Beijing are OK. Still loathe London 2012. This I like.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I've voted poor, and not just because of the "thrown together" feel. Celebrating the hangul writing system was a good thing to do, but the misrepresentation of the "ch" symbol here by the "asterisk" (can't be a snowflake with only 5 points) goes against the basic design principles which made hangul so brilliant.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I've voted poor, and not just because of the "thrown together" feel. Celebrating the hangul writing system was a good thing to do, but the misrepresentation of the "ch" symbol here by the "asterisk" (can't be a snowflake with only 5 points) goes against the basic design principles which made hangul so brilliant.

Eh! Outside of the Koreans, who would know? Besides, Calgary executed a brilliant, highly stylized pentacular, snowflake/maple leaf (also the intersection of the 5 overlapping Olympic rings) for its logo.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

@JMarkSnow2012: "the misrepresentation of the "ch" symbol here by the "asterisk" (can't be a snowflake with only 5 points) goes against the basic design principles which made hangul so brilliant."@baron-pierrreIV: "Outside of the Koreans, who would know? Besides, Calgary executed a brilliant, highly stylized pentacular, snowflake/maple leaf (also the intersection of the 5 overlapping Olympic rings) for its logo. "

"Outside of the Koreans"? Outside of the nation of fifty million people that's actually hosting the Games? Well, there's me for a start, and probably quite a few other people who respect a design that was several centuries ahead of its time.

The Calagary logo has fifteen points (plus the stalk)- the five small added circle segments give a fractal effect reminiscent of that seen on a snowflake.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I have been away for a while post london, but this fiasco has brought me back.... I have no words, when minimalism was done in the 70s it was original, now not so much. I agree that the launch video makes it a little better, but IMHO this logo is a very disappointing addition. What is even more disappointing is the wordmark being so bland, I like others can't imagine the how this look will develop for gamestime, it makes the London 2012 look seem wonderful (though it wasn't).

My biggest concern is that as younger generations get more discerning and brand aware as everything in their lives is branded, how does such a brand disaster fit in. Even if it is trying to make a youthful statement, the first impression to me seems to give an initial impression of an unprofessional logo of an unprofessional event, watching the brand video does some, but little to improve that impression. I cannot see how anyone part of that youth demographic would respond to it any differently (ie dismiss it as a non-genuine amateur event). Perhaps it is ironic, billion dollar branding exercise behind a brand built in MSPAINT?

I may not have loved the london 2012 logo or wordmark/Look (though that did grow on me) - but at least it was a brand that appeared created with thought and skill (albiet comic book graphic style). Also, the final cohesive 2012 look, achieved at games time, was unquestionably a professional brand.

This though, has no character at all to me...

I hope perhaps they are being too clever and it will be an evolving design one that changes and builds as we get closer to 2018, with what we have now being the basic core elements of the brand/logo only. (the lack of a distinct wordmark makes me doubt it though).

But either way i can't help feeling that this logo represents the final devolution of olympic branding, a process started by 2012 and 2014 (fought against - thank god in 2016) and finished with this.

Speaking of which Hot. Cool. Yours? WTF? Don't even get me started...........